Compare · SiteOwl
SiteOps Command vs SiteOwl
SiteOwl is built to run an installed security estate for its whole life. SiteOps Command is built to engineer the system before it is installed. Both are real problems — they are just not the same one.
Where SiteOwl wins
SiteOwl's core loop is genuinely well executed: drop a device on a digital floor plan, and every subsequent fact about that device — serial number, model, IP address, panel and controller association, firmware version, install photos, warranty terms, service history, configuration changes — attaches to that pin for the life of the asset. Field technicians close tickets from the plan itself. Devices approaching end-of-life get flagged. There is a real audit trail behind it.
For a security or facilities team running ongoing service across a multi-site portfolio, that is a deeper answer than we give today. Warranty tracking, firmware history and the service-ticket loop are all marked not available on our own capability matrix. We would rather you knew that from us.
Where the difference shows
The gap is engineering. Placing a camera on a plan records an intention; it does not tell you whether that camera will resolve a face at the end of the aisle at midnight, whether the rack in between blocks it, or whether the run back to the closet is inside the distance limit for the cable you specified. Those are computations, and they are what this platform is for — across cameras, Wi-Fi, access control, conference audio, cabling and power on one model.
| Capability | SiteOps Command | SiteOwl |
|---|---|---|
| Device placement on digital floor plans | ✓ | ✓ |
| Multi-site / campus portfolio management | Per-project and per-site records | Core strength — built for multi-site estates |
| Per-device service history and ticketing | Quality items, punch lists and acceptance | Core strength — every repair tied to the device |
| Warranty and end-of-life tracking | — | ✓ |
| Firmware and configuration change history | — | ✓ |
| Field technician app with photo capture | ✓ | ✓ |
| As-built asset record with IP, MAC and serial | ✓ | ✓ |
| Auto-updating material take-off / BOM | ✓ | ✓ |
| Cable pathways and lengths | Routed with rise, service loop and slack, validated to TIA-568 | Pathways and connection lengths documented |
| Camera coverage | Pixels-on-target scored against DORI per zone | Field-of-view documented on the plan |
| Fisheye and panoramic projection models | ✓ | — |
| Occlusion — walls, glass and racking casting shadows | ✓ | — |
| IR night-vision reach from the datasheet | ✓ | — |
| Wi-Fi RF propagation from wall materials | ✓ | — |
| Per-seat conference audio and display assessment | ✓ | — |
| Paging and sound-masking design | ✓ | — |
| 3D model and walkthrough | ✓ | — |
| Network topology, MDF/IDF and rack elevations | ✓ | — |
| PoE budgets, NEC circuits and UPS sizing | ✓ | — |
| Access-control door design with UL 294 power sizing | ✓ | Access devices and doors documented |
| Autonomous virtual site survey | ✓ | — |
| Multi-floor print-ready plan sets and submittals | ✓ | — |
| Quotes, orders, invoicing and renewals | ✓ | — |
The engineering layer
Prove it before it is mounted
Every discipline computes from the same building model, with the standard named on the number: DORI pixels-on-target per zone, ITU-R propagation over your real wall materials, speech intelligibility scored per seat, cable pulls checked for tension and distance, PoE and circuits sized to NEC.
- Per-camera 3D point of view, with walls, glass and warehouse racking casting real shadows.
- Access-control openings modelled end to end — reader, lock, REX, controller, power supply, and the run back to the closet.
- A design change re-computes the coverage, the cable routes and the bill of materials together.
- Multi-floor plan sets, discipline submittals and an as-built produced from the same record.
Frequently asked questions
Which one should we buy?
It depends on which problem is actually costing you. If you install a system once and then service it for ten years across forty sites, SiteOwl is built for that and is genuinely strong at it. If the expensive part is engineering the system correctly in the first place — proving coverage, sizing power, routing cable, producing a submittal that survives review — that is what this platform does.
Is SiteOwl a design tool?
It is a placement and documentation tool, and a very capable asset-lifecycle system. You drop a device on a floor plan and everything about that device attaches to the pin for its whole life. What the research found no evidence of is calculation: no pixels-on-target, no RF propagation, no acoustic modelling, no occlusion, no 3D. Documenting where a camera goes and computing what it will actually see are different jobs.
What does SiteOwl cost?
It does not publish pricing — its own pricing page returns nothing and its messaging directs you to request a quote. We are not going to guess a number and put it on our website, so this page carries none.
Can they coexist?
Reasonably, yes. Design and prove the system here, produce the submittal and the as-built, and let a lifecycle platform carry long-run service on the installed estate. The overlap is real at the asset-record layer; the gap is at the engineering layer on one side and the ten-year service history on the other.
What does SiteOps Command not do that SiteOwl does?
Warranty and end-of-life tracking, per-device firmware and configuration change history, and the mature service-ticket loop that lets a technician resolve a fault from the floor plan without calling the office. Those are on our capability matrix as not available, and they are real reasons a security operations team might choose differently.
See the engineering on your own floor plan
Bring a plan, place the devices, and read the numbers the model computes. Talk to us about what your team needs.